Tuesday, November 28, 2006

I don't know why the court cannot simply send a bill for the amount owed, like every other business. The court had sent me a scary notice saying that I'd lose my appeal unless I paid a $325 deposit to cover the cost of preparing a 10-15 page transcript. The letter suggested that I was on my own to figure out how much it costs. I guess that it cost $55. A couple of months later, I get my refund.

Monday, November 27, 2006

My ex-wife just called and said that she misplaced her clerk's transcript, and asked to borrow mine so that she can file her appeal brief against me! I said sure. I am a chump.

In reality, it wouldn't make much difference for me to refuse. She would just ask for an extension until she found it, or buy another copy, or just wing it. The legal issue is fairly narrow and the court is probably going to do whatever it wants to do no matter what she says.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Jennifer Hoult has a wonderful paper about the reasons why PAS is not admissable under either Frye or Daubert standards in a court of law. PAS needs to be kicked to the curb in all custody situations. It is useless, baseless and fraudulent.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the idea that one parent can badmouth the other parent to a child and generate hostility in the child towards that other parent. It most commonly arises when the mom gets primary custody, and then doesn't want to be bothered with the dad's visitation schedule.

You would think that it would be obvious that PAS sometimes occurs, but these feminists want arguments about PAS banned in court. The above paper argues that PAS evidence should be inadmissible in family court.

I actually think that it is good that feminists are drawing attention to the admissibility of arguments like this. If PAS is inadmissibility then most of the other commonly-used family court evidence would be also. The family courts should have to consider admissibility of evidence just like any other court. It would be much better if it followed either Frye or Daubert standards.

A commenter writes:

You might be interested to do a little research on the author of that "wonderful paper". She won a $500,000 judgment against her father for episodes of child abuse for which the only evidence was her own "recovered memory". Recovered memories are, if anything, considerably more controversial an issue in court and are known to have destroyed many innocent families. Many of the "practitioners" of recovered memory therapy have been exposed as charlatans.

The issue gets interesting when one considers that Hoult shows many of the characteristics of an alienated child, albeit apparently not at the hands of a malicious mother, but one wonders maybe those of a dangerous therapist? Having dug a hole for herself and her father, could she be digging that hole further in order to justify it?

Furthermore, that "wonderful paper" is quite the most horrendous piece of scholarship being largely an extended ad hominem attack on Richard Gardner and containing very little which discusses the reality of the phenomenon of parental alienation. The scary part is that certain influential people are taking it at face value. The dangerous result is that it could easily be used to excuse malicious behavior in custody battles - quite the opposite of its claimed purpose.

Wow. No, I didn't know that. It sounds like Hoult has her own parental alienation issues. Her own personal parental alienation is at least as relevant as Richard Gardner committing suicide.

Yes, you are right, the recovered memory folks are charlatans. They'd be among the first to go, if the court started rejecting more quack experts.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

That’s right – and teen health expert Dr. Meg Meeker has the data and clinical experience to prove it. After more than twenty years of counseling girls, she knows that fathers, more than anyone else, set the course for their daughters’ lives. Now, she shows you how to strengthen -- or rebuild – your bond with your daughter, and use it to shape her life, and yours, for the better.

Some people have this funny idea that only sons need fathers. Daughters need them too.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them). In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

I have been following your blog for quite awhile now. I am a single man (33) who has never married and probably never will given our present cultural climate. The horror stories I could share with you about the decay and moral bankrupcy of my generation. I was born in the wrong era friend.

I am writing to let you know the pride I feel as a man seeing you make a stand, even with the deck so completely stacked against you. You inspire me. It is my prayer that you'll awake each morning renewed and with all clarity and virtue. May you continue to fight the good fight…

I stand beside you, as will the truth – and in agreement, know that you gain very Author of it.

Thanks, but I am not campaigning against marriage. A lot of people are happily married. I do think that marriage has a different meaning today from what it had 40 years ago, but under the law and in popular culture. Make sure you understand it before you get married.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

British Airways has been accused of treating all men passengers as potential sex offenders after it was revealed it has banned children from sitting next to male strangers - even if their parents are on the same flight.

The bizarre regulation came to light when a nine-year-old girl was moved from her seat next to a 76-year-old passenger and his wife on a flight from Malaga to London.

Instead her mother was told by a stewardess to take the seat next to retired journalist Michael Kemp and his wife Frances, and the girl was moved to the back of the plane.

Mrs Kemp had booked an aisle seat because a bad leg meant she needed extra space. But as the Airbus A320 filled up, she was asked to swap seats with her husband so that she, not he, would be sitting next to the girl.

Mrs Kemp politely declined, explaining to the stewardess that she had asked for an aisle seat to avoid discomfort during the three-hour flight.

But when Mr Kemp offered to move to the window seat so that the girl could sit between him and his wife, the stewardess said it would still breach the airline's child-welfare regulations.

This is bizarre. It is not just a matter of protecting unaccompanied girls. The plane had three adjacent seats, and the girl was going to sit between her mom and her stepdad! What would be the problem with that?

Apparently British Airways has a policy that says that it is better to seat the girl with strangers.